TED Case Studies

UK Veal Exports

CASE NUMBER: 231
CASE MNEMONIC: VEAL
CASE NAME: Veal Exports/UK
A. IDENTIFICATION
1. The Issue
Exporting veal in the UK is a lucrative and profitable
industry. In 1993, the UK exported approximately 500,000 veal
calves to several European countries which generated 95 million
pounds in the UK economy. However, livestock exporters have
become embedded in controversy. Last year, ferry companies
introduced a transport ban on live animal exports, which
significantly impacted the marketplace. Protestors claim the
current exporting practices jeopardize and contravene animal
rights standards. They subsequently demand a unilateral ban on
the export of live animals. Because Great Britainžs veal calves
are exported throughout Europe, the issue involves the entire EU.
On February 20, 1995, the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers met
in Brussels to address the controversy, which now involves most
European countries because of the spread of protestors and
adverse market affects. UK Agriculture Ministers proposed an
increase in regulations for live animal exports. However, the
proposal was met with discontent by various EU members. To date,
no measure to limit veal trade has been implemented. The issue
is scheduled for further debate and will continue to generate
controversy throughout Europe.
2. DESCRIPTION
Veal is well known for its distinct texture and flavor and,
by most accounts, is considered a luxury. Fine restaurants
throughout the world offer veal entrees to which only the few and
fortunate may indulge. Veal is the product from calves that are
slaughtered at a young age. The muscles of the calves are not
fully developed and as a result the meat is exceptionally tender
and flavorful. Veal calves are raised explicitly for the purpose
of slaughter and are often kept in small crates that render them
immobile in order to prevent muscle development.
Great Britain is one of the biggest exporters of veal in
Europe. In recent years, the UK has exported approximately
500,000 live veal calves to Germany, Austria, Holland, Spain,
Italy, Greece, France, Portugal, Scotland, Northern Ireland and
the Scandinavian countries. In 1994, calves were sold from
anywhere between 50 and 160 pounds. The calves are slaughtered
once they reach their destination and sold in the respective
countries at competitive prices. Clearly, exporting veal in the
UK is a lucrative and profitable industry that employs thousands
of citizens and provides the majority of the European market with
veal products. The UK has historically provided veal calves to
diverse portions of Europe due to its advanced agricultural
industries.
In the past two years, however, the practice of exporting
live calves has become controversial. Socialists, liberals and
greens groups have united with animal rights groups to improve
conditions for the transport of live animals. Activists claim
the practice of transporting live veal calves contravenes animal
welfare because animals spend countless hours in inhumane
conditions while travelling to the European continent for
slaughter. Some groups claim that the European journeys often
last over forty hours. In addition, veal crates, which are often
used to keep calves immobile during the journey, provide another
source of tension.
Current UK law states that animals in transit must be
properly fed, watered, and rested after 15 hours. EU
regulations, on the other hand, allow animals to be transported
for 24 hours without a break. Moreover, the EU rule is not
strictly enforced or monitored. According to British leaders,
the absence of a strict EU rule imposing conditions for rest
periods aggravates the problem. In other words, livestock from
the UK can be taken on limitless journeys after they cross the
English Channel. The use of veal crates also intensifies the
debate. Veal crates were banned in Britain in 1991, but are
commonly used for production in France, the Netherlands and
Italy. There is currently no EU policy that addressees the issue
of veal crates.
Indeed, Western Europe has historically been a forum active
in promoting animal rights. The European fur ban (See ECFURBAN
Case) resulted from the persistent and vocal campaign focused on
animal rights. In a recent Irish Times article, the Irish
Minister for Agriculture stated that "'welfare friendliness'[has]
become a permanent feature in the politics of the [ EU
agricultural] industry." Perhaps in response to the growing
sentiment for animal welfare, last year consumption of red meat
dropped by 4 and 8 percent in France and Germany, respectively.
It is estimated that Europe is home to over 2.5 million
vegetarians.
Yet in Great Britain, the animal welfare movement is
particularly strong. Animal rights activists claim that "animal
suffering is comparable with that of humans in Nazi concentration
camps." There are dozens of UK organizations dedicated to
improving animal welfare, such as the Council for the Abolition
of Cruel Sports (CACS), the Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)
group, and the Alliance for Animal Rights (AFAR). However, the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is
by far Britain's best-known campaign group for animal welfare.
RSPCA was created in 1824 with its own act of parliament and has
500,000 supporters with an annual funding of 34 million pounds.
As one British journalists states: "...we, the British, are
renowned for our kindness to animals- but foreigners across the
Channel do not understand our ways, and European law forbids us
to ban the trade."
The animal rights movement has been gaining strength in the
UK since roughly 1976 when British philosopher Peter Singer
declared that humans and animals are entitled to "equality of
consideration." Animal-welfare campaigners proceeded to attack
animal abuse in "factory" farming, product-testing laboratories,
and cruel sports. As Ted Benton noted in The Guardian: "Singer's
work added the weight of serious moral argument to the growing
feelings of compassion and outrage which these campaigns evoked
in their 'attentive publics.'" The animal welfare movement has
since exploded, encompassing a wide range of issues and
controversy. The EU fur ban is a case in point. However, the
contemporary debate regarding the transport of live animals,
particularly veal calves, represents the most significant animal
welfare battle in this decade.
To date, protests against animal exporting have been both
excessive and radical. The protest movement has spread from the
UK to continental ports in Belgium and the Netherlands. The
animal welfare controversy has led to weeks of port and airport
blockades by animal rights groups. Radicals have chained
themselves to airplanes and trailers in efforts to stop animal
exporting. One protester was even killed last month when she
jumped in front of a moving truck carrying live animals.
Recently, UK Agriculture Minister William Waldegrave received
death threats for selling calves from his farm and letter bombs
were delivered to several exporting companies. One article in
the Montreal Gazette has stated that: "the movement echoes the
zealous demonstrations that crippled the seal hunt in Canada and
is even likened by some commentators to the militant campaigns by
the suffragettes at the turn of the century to secure the right
to vote for women."
The protests are incurring substantial costs. In Sussex,
police have been forced to spend an extra 3 million pounds to
employ 1,000 officers each day to repel protesters. Likewise,
the effects of the protests are felt in the marketplace both
financially and structurally. Last year, ferry companies
introduced a transport ban on live animal exports. Leading veal
exporters in the UK stopped transporting live animals altogether.
For example, P&O and Sealink, two of the biggest transporters of
live animals, stopped exporting calves altogether last year.
Trade was then forced to shift to smaller ports and airports.
Yet not all the smaller ports and airports welcome the
increase in activity. In fact, Humberside Airport in York
completely banned flights of live animals in 1994 in hopes of
diverting protestors and protecting calves. The legality of the
ban was challenged in a High Court by Albert Hall Farms. Albert
Farms exported over 130,000 calves in 1994, which accounts for 25
percent of the UK total. The High Court agreed to hear the case,
and ruled Albert Hall Farms had an arguable case and that
Humberside's ban might have breached EU free trade rules.
Shoreham port, a smaller port in Sussex, also banned the
export of animals. The decision, however, was not motivated by
animal rights concerns. Rather, local police could not afford to
continue policing the protest demonstrations and Sussex was thus
forced to close its port. Likewise, Swansea airport abandoned
plans to allow animal exports when persistent and violent
demonstrations appeared.
There have been substantial financial burdens in the veal
industry. Since the protest campaign began in 1992, exports of
British calves for slaughter have dropped 30 percent. The
British Meat and Livestock Commission estimates UK exports total
approximately 7,000 calves per week, as opposed to 10,000 during
1993. Furthermore, it is estimated that calf exports will fall
additionally to about half of this figure due to the animal
rights campaign.
The British Meat and Livestock Commission claims the
situation has deteriorated significantly and that the veal
industry must develop new markets for meat slaughtered in the UK.
Although the Commission favors an agreement in Europe that will
allow the transportation of live exports, the current trend
indicates that it is unlikely that the UK will regain the
competitive edge and resume the high exports levels of 1993.
Clearly, these developments have had adverse effects on the
economies of EU countries. As a result of a decrease in veal
exports, there has been an increase in veal prices throughout
Western Europe. In France, for example, veal producers pay
1,200FF to 1,300FF per head of veal, which is significantly
higher than prices last year. In contrast, however, veal prices
are depressed in Great Britain and estimates cite a 25 percent
price decrease within the UK.
Although the economic impact is substantial, it is the
political, moral, and ethical facet of the issue that presents
the most serious challenge to the UK and European Union. To
begin, examine the debate between the British society and
Parliament. First, radical protestors endorse a unilateral ban
on the export of live animals, which would include veal calves
and sheep. Many UK officials, however are opposed to such
drastic alternatives. The UK Minister of Agriculture, William
Waldegrave, for example, believes that a ban would be ruled
unlawful in both the European and British Parliaments. He
states: "The European Commission would take the UK Government to
the European Court of Justice to have such a unilateral ban
reversed." In addition, Minister Waldegrave claims that "...UK
farmers would have claims for compensation against our government
for damages suffered as a consequence of unlawful action. A
ban on exporting live animals would also place British farmers at
a competitive disadvantage in the European market. However,
Minister Waldegrave favors raising animal welfare standards that
are agreeable with the EU member states. He has repeatedly urged
that the issue be resolved by the EU.
As previously mentioned, animals in transit in the UK must
be properly fed, watered, and rested after 15 hours, while
current EU regulations allow animals to be transported for 24
hours without a break. The discrepancy between the British and
EU regulation allows animals to travel on limitless journeys once
they depart the UK. To remedy the problem, Great Britain
recommends that the EU establish a regulation that would require
extended rest periods throughout Europe for the transport of live
animals.
Other proposals exist in the British parliament that address
the problem. There is currently a bill called "Protection of
Calves Export Bill" in Parliament to curb the export of live
calves for veal trade. Followers of this bill claim that banning
veal trade is consistent to the decision in 1990 to ban the
transportation of horses for slaughter. In addition, the UK
Labour Party is pushing for a labelling scheme for all exporters
and haulers sending livestock from Britain to the European
continent. Specifically, if a driver or firm is found guilty of
breaking animal welfare rules, they could have their license
withdrawn. However, this option would not be able to be enforced
on companies or drivers based in other countries.
At the same time, the EU community is addressing the dilemma
is various forums. The European Parliament, for example,
recently proposed a resolution to the issue. A joint Resolution
was tabled by the Socialists, Liberals, Green Groups, and the
European Peopležs Party on February 15, 1995. The Parliament's
resolution on livestock welfare has five components. First, the
Parliament called for policies to favor the transport of meat
rather than live animals. Second, a resolution calls for a
maximum journey time of eight hours, with clear standards for
land, sea, and air journeys, and a regular monitoring of
conditions by veterinary bodies. Third, the Parliament calls for
a banning of veal crates and strict control of conditions for
animals arriving from third countries. Fourth, the resolution
will deny export refunds exporters not in compliance with animal
welfare standards. Finally, there is a movement to impose an
EU-wide meat labelling scheme indicating the quality of
conditions in which livestock were raised.
The recommendations of the European and UK Parliaments were
presented during the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in
Brussels on February 20-21, 1995. First, the UK suggestion to
introduce a mandatory rest period after fifteen hours of
transport was met with serious opposition by many EU members.
Countries in Southern Europe object to any strict regulations
that would add to travel costs, thus increasing a price in veal.
Clearly, imposing higher standards would mean higher prices. For
example, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal rejected the proposal.
Obviously, dealers in these countries will oppose any measures
that will disrupt trade and add to cost. Northern countries,
such as Germany, Austria, Holland, the Scandinavia, agree with
Great Britain and are willing to compromise and impose some
regulations on live animal exports. It is probable that these
countries will not experience any significant disruption in trade
if strict regulations are imposed.
The suggestions of the European Parliament also received
ardent protest for both legality and feasibility. Namely, the
proposal to allow a maximum journey time of eight hours was
vehemently opposed by the southern EU countries. These countries
have promised to oppose any regulation that imposes a rest period
before 22 hours. Likewise, the complete ban of veal crates was
resisted by France, the Netherlands, and Italy. Although the UK
Labour Party agreed with the resolutions of the European
Parliament, they were not successful in generating support.
Clearly, the end is not near in resolving animal exporting
in the UK. The debate regarding the exportation of live animals
has involved a wide array of countries and interests. Producers,
exporters, and consumers of veal appear pointed against animal
welfare activists. It is not likely that the matter will be
resolved in the near future, which makes the fate of animal
exporting extremely uncertain.
In summary, exporting veal has become a controversial issue
throughout Europe. Protestors have successfully disrupted and
re-routed trade with violent and radical outbursts. Veal
production and consumption has declined and accordingly, the
market has experienced adverse effects. Clearly, the matter will
continue to generate disagreement among the EU members,
producers, and animal welfare activists. At the same, time the
issue divides Europe into north and south factions. It is
doubtful that the measures introduced by the UK and the European
Parliament's will be fully adopted in the near future. Cultural
and historical conceptions have intensified the debate over the
last five years. Thus, Europe will remain divided on this issue
culturally, ethically, and economically.
3. RELATED CASES
BEAR case
ECFURBAN case
EUMEAT case
Keyword Clusters
(1): Trade Product = VEAL
(2): Domain = EUROPE
(3): Environmental Problem = RIGHTS
4. DRAFT AUTHOR: Stephanie R. Haller
B. LEGAL CLUSTER
6. DISCOURSE AND STATUS: DISagreement and INPROGress
Radical protestors want a complete ban on the export of live
animals while moderate groups favor mild restrictions on
exporting veal. However, countries that import large quantities
of veal from the UK protest any movement which would diversely
affect trade and costs. It is in progress because it is
scheduled to go before the European Commission later this year
and a resolution is pending.
7. FORUM AND SCOPE: UK and REGIONal
8. DECISION BREADTH: 14
The UK exports veal to Germany, Austria, Holland, Spain,
Italy, Greece, France, Portugal, Scotland, Northern Ireland and
three Scandinavian countries. Thus, a minimum of 14 parties are
affected. However, if regulations were imposed across the EU
that pertained to imports on all live animals, a significant
number of other countries would be involved. For example, many
European countries import animals from the Third World and
Eastern Europe and these countries would be subjected to the same
requirements. Hence, there could be as many as 50 other parties
involved.
9. LEGAL STANDING: TREATY
Currently, there is a ban on the export of veal involving
businesses. To explain, a number of transportation companies
have banned live exports independent of the UK government. Thus,
it is a non-governmental agreement. There is the potential that
other measures will be enacted into law to restrict or limit veal
exporting on behalf of the EU. The recommendations by the
European parliament, for example, my be modified or adopted by
the EU. Likewise, the measure by the UK to impose a mandatory
rest period after 15 hours may gain approval in the future,
although this is not likely.
C. GEOGRAPHIC FILTERS
10. GEOGRAPHY
a. Continental Domain: Europe
b. Geographic Site: [WEUR]
c. Geographic Impact: UK
This answer is self-explanatory. The greatest geographic
impact will be in the UK, and the continental domain is Europe.
Likewise, the geographic site includes Western Europe.
11. SUB-NATIONAL FACTORS: YES
There is a sub-state issue in the sense that the UK is
pitted against the EU. Pressures within the EU, as well as
protests, are spreading to the continent. A ban on the export of
live animals in some portions of the UK also suggest that
sub-national factors are at play in this case.
12. TYPE OF HABITAT: TEMPerate
1V. TRADE FILTERS
13. TYPE OF MEASURE: EXBAN, LICEN, REGBAN
There are three measures that must be considered. First,
there is an export ban at local levels in some parts of Great
Britain. Second, there are efforts in both the European and
British Parliamentžs to impose labelling requirements. Third,
there are regulatory measures that are being considered in the UK
and EU governments. The regulations that are proposed would
increase the rest periods while transporting live animals.
14. DIRECT VS. INDIRECT IMPACTS: DIRect
15. RELATION OF MEASURE TO IMPACT
a. DIRECTLY RELATED: YES
b. INDIRECTLY RELATED: NO
c. NOT RELATED: NO
d. PROCESS: YES
16. TRADE PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION: VEAL
The product type for exporting is veal calves. The calves
are then slaughtered in the appropriate countries for the
production of veal.
17. ECONOMIC DATA
Industry output was 500,000 calves annually, generating $1.9
billion in the UK. There is a tremendous amount of jobs
generated by the veal exporting industry. For example, farmers,
truck drivers, ferry operators, airlines, butchers, stores,
restaurants, are each professions which to an extent depend on
the export of veal for their livelihood.
18. DEGREE OF COMPETITIVE IMPACT: HIGH
There is a great demand for UK veal throughout Europe. It
will be difficult to measure the exact impact, but because of the
dependency on UK veal, it is estimated that the degree of
competitive impact will be high.
19. INDUSTRY SECTOR: FOOD
20. EXPORTER AND IMPORTER: UK and FRANCE
It is estimated that the veal exporting business in the UK
generates $1.9 billion each year, although this is declining
rapidly. The monetary figure for the importing income is not
available, most likely because of the large number of countries
that import UK veal calves.
V. ENVIRONMENT CLUSTER
21. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM TYPE: RIGHTS
This case represents an animal welfare issue. Clearly,
welfare activists that oppose exporting veal cite animal rights
as the primary motive. It is proven that animals in transit in
the UK are not treated humanely.
21. SPECIES INFORMATION
SPECIES:
GENERA:
DIVERSITY:
22. IMPACT AND EFFECT: LOW and REGULatory
If this case is considered a source problem, or in other words,
a resource depletion problem in the sense of species loss, then
the impact is low. There is no real risk to depleting the
species and there are no adverse effects to their removal. The
effect is considered regulatory in light of the current efforts
and movements.
23. URGENCY AND LIFETIME: LOW and 100 of years
There is no urgency to this case. There is no danger that calves
will become extinct if the practice continues, for they are in
fact breed for the purpose of slaughter in highly controlled
environments. The lifetime of the species is not applicable
because all of the animals are slaughtered within the first few
years of their lives.
24. SUBSTITUTE: LIKE
There is no substitute to veal. Other forms of meat are
available, but according to many, veal is an extravagant pleasure
to which there can be no substitute. However, as mentioned, the
British Trade Commission has suggested developing new markets for
British meat slaughtered in the UK. Yet this will neither
supplement the loss incurred on the British economy, nor will it
provide a similar market. It may be assumed that veggie burgers
may be a substitute, however, for those that truly savor beef in
general and veal in particular, there is simply no substitute.
VI. OTHER FACTORS
25. CULTURE: YES
Culture is definitely a factor in this case. In Great
Britain, the animal welfare movement is particularly strong.
Animal rights activists claim that "animal suffering is
comparable with that of humans in Nazi concentration camps."
As noted in the text, here are dozens of UK organizations
dedicated to improving animal welfare. The Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is by far Britain's
best-known campaign group for animal welfare. RSPCA was created
in 1824 and has 500,000 supporters with an annual funding of 34
million pounds. As one British journalists states: ". . . we,
the British, are renowned for our kindness to animals- but
foreigners across the Channel do not understand our ways, and
European law forbids us to ban the trade."
The animal rights movement gained momentum in roughly 1976
when British philosopher Peter Singer declared that humans and
animals are entitled to "equality of consideration." Animal-
welfare campaigners proceeded to debate the abuse of animals in
"factory" farming, product-testing laboratories, and cruel
sports. As Ted Benton noted in The Guardian: "Singer's work
added the weight of serious moral argument to the growing
feelings of compassion and outrage which these campaigns evoked
in their 'attentive publics.'" The animal welfare movement
exploded, encompassing a wide range of issues and controversy.
The EU fur ban is a case in point. However, the contemporary
debate regarding the transport of live animals, particularly veal
calves, represents the most significant animal welfare battle in
this decade.
Cultural differences between EU member states will
perpetuate the problem. For example, south European countries
such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal cannot understand the animal
rights movement. When it was discovered that 50 to 30 million
pounds worth of live animal exports to the EU were threatened by
the protests, an Irish agribusinessman represented the views of
many of his colleagues when he spoke of the "long haired yobs of
the protest culture, living off the taxpayer with all the time in
the world to plan the disruption and destruction of businesses
built up by those working hard for a living." Simply, in many
European societies, animal rights receive less attention. As a
result, it will be difficult to reach an agreement between the
north and south. The glaring difference is already obvious in
the divergent proposals for rest periods for live animal
transports. The north suggests an eight hour maximum journey
time while the south holds that a rest period after 22 hours is
sufficient.
Culture is also a factor because as a result of the
protests, the UK culture has developed an aversion to veal
consumption. Radical animal welfare movements have made it
difficult for stores to carry, sell, or serve veal entrees.
Consequently, it is difficult for the UK veal market to
compensate for low levels of exporting activity by selling veal
within Great Britain.
Finally, it has been suggested that some EU countries will
not accept British beef because of fears about a "mad-cow
disease." In portions of Germany, for example, imports of
British beef were banned from June 1994 to February 1995. It was
generally believed that British meat was contaminated with a form
of brain disease called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),
or "mad cow" disease. For a short time, Germany's action invoked
fear in other portions of Europe and although the market was not
affected, there was a common perception among European citizens
that all UK meat was contaminated.
26. RIGHTS: YES
Animal rights are the issue in this case. There is no doubt
that animals are being treated inhumanely. The use of veal
crates if particularly destructive to animal rights. Although
banned in the UK, animal crates are frequently used in southern
portions of Europe. Some veal calves spend their lives in these
crates in order to produce more tender meat. Also, calves are
often transported in veal crates. Simply, cruelty is the norm
and there is a general disregard for animal rights. Animal
welfare issues have attracted more attention in the past few
years, as the European fur-ban demonstrated, and frequently
disrupts trade in the process. Animal rights standards are
strict in the UK and most of the EU, yet they are rarely
enforced.
27. TRANS-BOUNDARY ISSUES: YES
This case cuts across boundaries from the UK to Italy.
Clearly, the export of veal and other live animals affects the
entire European Community. Even some non EU members, such as
Ireland and Scotland are involved indirectly in this case.
28. RELEVANT LITERATURE
"Animal Welfare: Ministers Talk as Protest Spreads to Continent,"
Agri Service International 17 February 1995. Available: NEXIS
Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
Ted Benton, "Choked on Mammon's Meat," The Guardian 11 February
1995: p. 24. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
David Brown, "Waldegrave urges longer livestock rest periods,"
The Daily Telegraph 20 February, 1995: p. 2. Available: NEXIS
Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
James Erlichman, "Shoreham set to become Livestock Mega-Port,"
The Guardian 27 February 1995: p. 2. Available: NEXIS
Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
Deborah Hargreaves, "One man's meat proves poison for protesters:
Intensive Farming Methods are About to Come Under the Spotlight,"
Financial Times 10 February 1995: p. 8. Available: NEXIS
Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
Alison Maitland, "Meat industry plans safety net," Financial
Times 15 February 1995: p. 37. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS
File: ALLNWS.
Trevor Mason, "Animal Exports Battle Swinging our
way-Waldegrave," Press Association Newsfile 22 February 1995.
Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS File: ALLNWS.
Geoff Meade, "Animal Rights Talks Resume," Press Association
Newsfile 19 February, 1995. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS File:
ALLNWS.
"Minister awaits new EU regulations on live animal exports," The
Irish Times 17 February 1995: p. 10. Available: NEXIS Library:
NEWS File: ALLNWS.
Simon Midgley, "Calf export fall by 30%," The Independent 15
February 1995: p. 5. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS File:
ALLNWS.
Juliet O'Neill, "British Cattle Protesters Get a Martyr..." The
Gazette 9 February 1995: p. A18. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS
File: ALLNWS.
Murray Ritchie, "Drivers Protest Over Export Ban," The Herald
(Glasgow) 11 February 1995: p. 7. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS
File: ALLNWS.
Kathy Sheridan, "Is Animal Rights Worth Dying For?" The Irish
Times 11 February 1995: p. 9. Available: NEXIS Library: NEWS
File: ALLNWS.